[R2D2]

Originally Posted by rajatsingh78

I know what you are suggesting however I have to buy the camera body from India for a peace of mind on warranty,

Will Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX work on D90 ?

How to check this ?

The 18-55 is a DX lens and will work on the D90, D5000 or for that matter any recent model Nikon DX or FX DSLR.

Rgds,

[shajufx]

Its not about the price, I dont think its even worth comparing the two in question, its as equal as comparing an intern to a manager . Both are used by totally different class of people. I already use a D90, Riju is using a D80, so there is no point buying another cropped sensor when the next upgrade is supposed to be a full frame (FX), hope that clears the air.

[rajatsingh78]

Thank you guys for clearing my doubts, my final purchase will be -
1. Nikon D90 - 41000 INR from India
2. Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX - 5000 INR from US

This is for the time being (budget constraints)

In the next 6 months it will be a prime lens, probably a Nikon 50mm f/1.4D, once I have some experience,
And then next 6 months savings will go into some decent zoom lens for birding

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by rajatsingh78

Thank you guys for clearing my doubts, my final purchase will be -
1. Nikon D90 - 41000 INR from India
2. Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX - 5000 INR from US

This is for the time being (budget constraints)

In the next 6 months it will be a prime lens, probably a Nikon 50mm f/1.4D, once I have some experience,
And then next 6 months savings will go into some decent zoom lens for birding

Hey that's great. Good luck with the new kit. Do post your thoughts once you get the gear and some photos if you can.

The 50mm F/1.4D is a great lens that you'll want to keep indefinitely. Have had one since many years and it is one of my favourites. The newer alternative 50mm 1.4G AF-S is more expensive but supposedly better.

Regards,

[sbraj]

Originally Posted by rajatsingh78

Thank you guys for clearing my doubts, my final purchase will be -
1. Nikon D90 - 41000 INR from India
2. Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX - 5000 INR from US

This is for the time being (budget constraints)

In the next 6 months it will be a prime lens, probably a Nikon 50mm f/1.4D, once I have some experience,
And then next 6 months savings will go into some decent zoom lens for birding

Depending on your needs, you may find 18-55 to be limited range. You may later need a 55-200. But changing lens on the fly, in a dusty environment is not a good idea. I have a D90 with 18-105, now I regret not opting for 18-200.

Think about this, and don't be in a hurry to conclude.

You mention birding. And also about gaining experience. How about going for the 50mm in the first go, and later on adding a zoom lens?

[akbaree]

Originally Posted by shajufx

Its not about the price, I dont think its even worth comparing the two in question, its as equal as comparing an intern to a manager . Both are used by totally different class of people. I already use a D90, Riju is using a D80, so there is no point buying another cropped sensor when the next upgrade is supposed to be a full frame (FX), hope that clears the air.

With advancing technology, the differences are blurring each passing day. Just a few years back who would have thought so many people would buy a DSLR. It is not far when most DSLR buyers would be buying full frame cameras.

I am planning to buy a DSLR for quite some time now. And I liked D7000. After reading your and Riju's comment, I got confused. Thanks for the clarification. And you are right, upgrading have it's own requirements.

[saurabhdadhichi]

Hi Friends,

Can anyone suggest me best place in Delhi to buy DSLR lens for my Sony Alpha 200? I am looking for 16-80mm lens at the moment as my standard lens is damaged now.

Would it be a good idea to look at the grey market to get a higher specification lens within the same budget of normal 16-80mm lens?

Is it a good idea to also get a spare lens of F1.8 50mm for capturing images in low light with ease?

[shajufx]

Originally Posted by akbaree

...It is not far when most DSLR buyers would be buying full frame cameras.....And you are right, upgrading have it's own requirements.

Not necessary buddy, full frame (FX) cameras are mostly bought by serious or professional type shooters, not at all by beginner or mid level hobbyists. Plenty of serious level shooters are still content with a Nikon D300s (the highest grade DX body from Nikon till date). Next upgrade is naturally a D700 (which starts the FX range to D3, D3S, D3X).

Nikon D90 claims to have the same sensor as equal as D300s, therefore a D90 user may not find any meaning in upgrading to D300s unless he is looking for some added features, buttons and weather-proof body etc.

Upgrading from DX to FX also has a huge issue of compatibility of many lenses which a user might already have, 99% chances are owning DX lenses. So he will end up selling all of it to buy FX lenses. Nikon line-up of lenses have DX marking ( AF-S DX) that are best only with DX bodies. Sigma differentiates it by marking DG (for FX) and DC (for DX) on their lenses.

Summary: A Hobbyist will be always happy with a DX body and lens collection due to the added advantage of 1.5 times extra reach of the lenses (eg. a 100 mm lens gives a 150mm reach) and the weight factor and most important: the cost factor !

[akbaree]

I beg to differ...

Originally Posted by shajufx

Not necessary buddy, full frame (FX) cameras are mostly bought by serious or professional type shooters, not at all by beginner or mid level hobbyists.

Same was true for DSLR users till only a few years back.

Originally Posted by shajufx

Nikon D90 claims to have the same sensor as equal as D300s, therefore a D90 user may not find any meaning in upgrading to D300s unless he is looking for some added features, buttons and weather-proof body etc.

People do upgrade for features. Sensor size is not the only driving factor. Think of the time when all cameras were 35 MM.

Originally Posted by shajufx

Summary: A Hobbyist will be always happy with a DX body and lens collection due to the added advantage of 1.5 times extra reach of the lenses (eg. a 100 mm lens gives a 150mm reach) and the weight factor and most important: the cost factor !

Most of these factors are transitional. I may be wrong and time will tell but the time is not far when APS-C and Full Frame sensor cameras will be available at similar price points. The user will decide the body depending on various factors - their needs, how invested they are in certain kind of lenses (this has been a factor always), et al.

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by shajufx

Summary: A Hobbyist will be always happy with a DX body and lens collection due to the added advantage of 1.5 times extra reach of the lenses (eg. a 100 mm lens gives a 150mm reach) and the weight factor and most important: the cost factor !

Depends on the Hobbyists if his/her hobby is landscape photography rather then birding exact opposit applies. You can use cheaper Wide angle lenses rather then Ultra wide angle 10-20mm for similar use case if you have full frame. Right now cost is the limiting factor but if cost is same people can choose depending on the usage.

[shajufx]

akbaree, You are not differing, you are only repeating what I typed . And the cost factor: an FX body starts from 1 lak+ whereas a DX body you get from 15k. Do you think it will be similar in few years ? I must be dreaming. A hobbyist shoots for his heart, a PRO shoots for his income, so money spent is a constraint in every sense.

Amit, do you think a full frame shooter will compromise on cheaper lenses ? You spend 1 lak for a body and shoot with a 10k worth lens ? The whole purpose of using an FX body is put to shame in that case.

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by akbaree

Most of these factors are transitional. I may be wrong and time will tell but the time is not far when APS-C and Full Frame sensor cameras will be available at similar price points. The user will decide the body depending on various factors - their needs, how invested they are in certain kind of lenses (this has been a factor always), et al.

IMHO, FX and DX DSLRs will continue to exist as they serve 2 very different segments of the market. The former towards advanced amateurs and pros, the latter towards amateurs and beginners.

If I really stretch my imagination and think radically, larger companies mainly Nikon and Canon may even decide to kill DX as FX cameras will become cheaper over a period of time. We'll be back to the film days where all DSLRs operate using one standard. Consolidating your product mix (bodies and lenses) may offer efficiency gains.

Originally Posted by shajufx

Amit, do you think a full frame shooter will compromise on cheaper lenses ? You spend 1 lak for a body and shoot with a 10k worth lens ? The whole purpose of using an FX body is put to shame in that case.

You hit the nail on the head with that one. A FX body/sensor reveals more optical defects as a result you are quite literally made to think hard about the quality of the lenses you buy.

BTW, don't just go by the price. Nikon has made some real gems for a surprisingly low price, one example being the 50mm F/1.8D that goes for about Rs. 7K with b&w in India. It is very highly recommended by all including the pros.

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by shajufx

Amit, do you think a full frame shooter will compromise on cheaper lenses ? You spend 1 lak for a body and shoot with a 10k worth lens ? The whole purpose of using an FX body is put to shame in that case.

Shaju does cheaper lens means bad lens ?

A 10mm lens on APS-C is equivalent to 16mm on Full Frame body and at 20mm end it is 32mm. In the film days ( 35mm) wide angle used to be 28mm lens but no longer due to the crop. Due to crop factor you need what is known as ultra wide angle.

Ultrawide angle lenses such as canon 10-20mm are difficult to design and costly to manufacture because it needs a lot of effort to keep away the barrel distortion , but still the cost of full frame is too high

So a compromise is to Purchase a 400$ canon 10-20mm for APS-C body rather then a 2400$ full frame body + cheaper 28mm lens.

If suppose the cost of full frame body reduced then for landscape photography a traditional wide angle lens with out distortion is lot better then costlier ultra wide angle which is prone to distortion.

Cost of Optics will only go up due to inflation but cost of sensors and electronics have high possibility of coming down due to moors law catching up.

[shajufx]

Originally Posted by R2D2

...Nikon has made some real gems for a surprisingly low price, one example being the 50mm F/1.8D that goes for about Rs. 7K with b&w in India. It is very highly recommended by all including the pros.

I agree, I was not ignoring that beautiful piece of glass, I have 50mm 1.4 in my wishlist that comes around 15k. Its a must have for low light shoots.

Originally Posted by amitk26

Shaju does cheaper lens means bad lens ?

Amit, I am not talking about quality of lenses Vs its prices. My only point was the different segments when it comes to a DX and FX body and I still believe it will remain that way for years to come. I think people know about the cropped sensor difference in the 'reach' part.

But technically a 11-16mm coveraged area on a DX frame is less than a 16-24 area on an FX frame. It sounds equal but its not. I was not clear about that fact until I attended my photography workshop and asked about this and was made to look through the differences.

Since you posted about the 'cheap lens Vs bad lens', how many PROs you know who are carrying a lens anything less than a f/2.8 quality lens ? A 14-24 costs 1 lak+, a 24-70 is again 1 lak+, a 70-200 is 1.5 lak+, so with a beginner FX body like D700 we are already going above 4.5 lak and remember I have put only a 14-200 range. Now count the primes one will have in the bag like 50mm, 85mm etc. Where a hobbyist will even think to that kind of budget when all this can be possible well within 50k to 1 lak unless one has so much of excess funds to burn Also remember all this mentioned glasses are metal body and heavy !

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by shajufx

Since you posted about the 'cheap lens Vs bad lens', how many PROs you know who are carrying a lens anything less than a f/2.8 quality lens ? A 14-24 costs 1 lak+, a 24-70 is again 1 lak+, a 70-200 is 1.5 lak+, so with a beginner FX body like D700 we are already going above 4.5 lak and remember I have put only a 14-200 range. Now count the primes one will have in the bag like 50mm, 85mm etc. Where a hobbyist will even think to that kind of budget when all this can be possible well within 50k to 1 lak unless one has so much of excess funds to burn Also remember all this mentioned glasses are metal body and heavy !

Even the fast lens is cheaper for wide angle then ultra wide angle due to cost of optics.

Let me compare ( 24 mm = 15X1.6 ) costs but you can compare any two lenses with equivalent focal lengths.
I don't know much about Nikons but a Canon 24mm F1.4 USM is lot cheaper at 320$ then canon fisheye 15mm F2.8 which is double the cost at 650$. While some may like Fisheye effect but originally it was a necessary evil because of barrel distortion.


We were talking about hobbyists. Right now Full frame is out of budget of hobbyists because they can not justify more then a lakh for just body.

Well let me reiterate what I said lets say in 4 years of time the cost for sensor comes down ( eventually it will ) then as a hobbyists will eventually choose body based on need rather then based on costs.

So If as a hobbyist I want to do wide angle then a cheaper 28mm prime with FF body is any-day better then UWA with cropped body.

Similarly among fast zooms ultra wide angles are costlier. So as a hobbyists If Price of body is same definitely people will choose the body as per needs , Cost of glass can not be lowered much but cost of electronics is bound to fall as semi conductor industry progress.

So a FF body for wide angle photography and micro 4/3 or APS-C for tele range

Can't say much about so pro's no experience in that area.